Denisyuk v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

46 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The Vice Chair expressed her disagreement with the fact that if a judge fails to advise the defendant about the consequences of a guilty plea, no remedy exists, even if that defendant suffers dire consequences. Some other states provide that if the advice is not given, the plea can be invalidated. The Chair pointed out that there are two aspects to this. One is that the defendant can get post-conviction relief based on inadequate advice of counsel. The Rule says that the guilty plea cannot be attacked, but does not preclude postconviction relief. U.S. citizens may not ask for their pleas to be set aside because the judge did not give the advice about immigration consequences. If a particular defendant is unfairly prejudiced, that defendant’s right to competent defense counsel should cover this situation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Miller v. State

2. “Maryland has not adopted Teague , nor must it. See Danforth v. Minnesota, 552 U.S. 264, 282 [ 128 S.Ct. 1029 , 169 L.Ed.2d 859 ] (2008) (stating that Teague “does not in any way limit the authority of a state court, when reviewing its own state criminal convictions, to provide a remedy for a violation that is declared ‘nonretroactive’ under Teague.”). Thus, even if the Supreme Court ever were to hold that Padilla is not retroactive under Teague , that holding would have no adverse effect on our analysis here. Indeed, we cite and discuss these cases because we find persuasive, and subscribe to, the analysis these courts gave to the Padilla decision.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Guardado v. State

3. “(e) Collateral consequences of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere. Before the court accepts a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the court, the State’s Attorney, the attorney for the defendant, or any combination thereof shall advise the defendant (1) that by entering the plea, if the defendant is not a United States citizen, the defendant may face additional consequences of deportation, detention, or ineligibility for citizenship.... The omission of advice concerning the collateral consequences of a plea does not itself mandate that the plea be declared invalid.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Miller v. State